More Wedding

after_effects

after_effects

Carbonite Member
Another wedding I shot the other day. The little girl was very easy to work with as well.

Here are some more if you would like to check them out...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13647884@N03/sets/72157605148167011/

2696992498_cfb36349c8.jpg


2696173881_2b82c0669a.jpg


2696172243_e4638daa63_b.jpg


2696990002_940d4bb9b3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Actually, having reviewed these again I have to say #4 is a strong image IMO and easily overlooked in the context of the overall collection because it doesn't scream "Wedding" At first glance it seems almost out of place but I like it as a shot big time:)
 
after_effects said:
Thanks guys.

I use the Fuji S5 and for glass I use the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 and the 80-200mm 2.8
Click to expand...

I think the S5 was one of the most under-rated cameras in it's class. I still have mine but it's selling soon now that I moved to the D700. I never had to shoot RAW with the Fuji because the colors just came out perfect to begin with.

I think the 2nd shot from the last is pretty bitchin'. What kind of lighting did you use for that? Are you sporting the fong?
 
WaveRiderXIX said:
I think the S5 was one of the most under-rated cameras in it's class. I still have mine but it's selling soon now that I moved to the D700. I never had to shoot RAW with the Fuji because the colors just came out perfect to begin with.

I think the 2nd shot from the last is pretty bitchin'. What kind of lighting did you use for that? Are you sporting the fong?
Click to expand...


Thanks WaveRider,

The only lighting for the 2nd last shot was coming from a north facing window and the soft glow was from a Nik filter in PS. Dont have a fong and havent tried it. For flash I use a light colored ceiling or I have a lumiquest bounce.
 
The S5 is a freaking amazing camera.... at least in my experience. I loved it's tonality and dynamic range!

I'm slightly surprised you don't use the 70-200 VR constant aperture f2.8. Ok, well maybe not too surprised... it's a freaking expensive lens but oh so tasty! Especially for this sort of low light, people pic!

I like the selective skin tone correction in these. It works well for the subject and fits nicely with the style. It's just the right amount. :)
 
Shaw said:
The S5 is a freaking amazing camera.... at least in my experience. I loved it's tonality and dynamic range!

I'm slightly surprised you don't use the 70-200 VR constant aperture f2.8. Ok, well maybe not too surprised... it's a freaking expensive lens but oh so tasty! Especially for this sort of low light, people pic!

I like the selective skin tone correction in these. It works well for the subject and fits nicely with the style. It's just the right amount. :)
Click to expand...

Hi Shaw,

I really wish I could have a 70-200, but you are right they are way expensive.

Where I live the 70-200 VR is around $1800, where I picked up the 80-200 2.8 for a little less than $1000. So is 10mm extra and VR worth the $800? Maybe eventually, but when I bought the 80-200 I needed other lenses. Plus I use the 150-200mm range the most on that lens, so really I would be paying just for the VR.

Even though everyone is screaming about full frame, I do really love more aspects of the 1.5 crop sensor that the S5 has.

For one I like how my 80-200mm zoom is more like a 120-300mm zoom.

I like how my Nikon 17-55mm is more like a 25.5-82.5mm zoom. If I had full frame the lens compared to that would be the Nikon 24-70. I lose the 1.5mm on the wide, but gain 12.5mm on the telephoto.

If I really need anything ultra-wide I just use the 10.5mm DX, havent needed anything wider yet.

But I guess full frame does give you better low light shooting, so that would come in handy for me at least. Besides that, Im not really sure what else I would need full frame for? Maybe a little more dof?

Anyways i kinda went on there, but yes the S5 is under rated because people hate how slow it is, but I dont shoot sports I shoot weddings and I already capture too many pictures already.

I did find this link on the S5 Pro's jpeg dynamic range. It isnt perfect, but gives u just a little bit extra to work with in post. Here is the link...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/s5/dynamic-range.htm

He talks about jpegs around half way down.
 
Oh hey, I hear you completely - I'd have one too but the benefit isn't worth the price premium for me either at the moment. The only way I've gotten my hands on the 70-200 was at "my old man's" house with his D300. I may have to "borrow" both of those, heh.

The 10.5 is a nice lens. I really want to get my hands on the 14-24mm f2.8 for landscapes one of these days. It would be nice to have a fisheye and a rectalinear wide angle. So, yeah, I haven't felt a need for much wider angle either.

The extra length from the 1.5 crop is great when shooting animals in yellowstone! I wouldn't want to do without it. The only reason I can think of for wanting full frame is lower noise but frankly, for the money, I would probably be better off getting a large format film camera for my outdoor work.

Do youshoot JPEG for faster processing?
 
Yeah when you are shooting 1200-1500 pictures a wedding you really need to shoot jpeg if you want to speed up your post work. You lose a little bit of headroom in the raw files, but if you know how to white balance correctly and light your subject correctly, then you dont really need to shoot raw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top